Detail Koleksi A Common Peer Review Problem   Oleh:  Banks, George Y. ; McConnell, Donald K., [Jr.] Jenis: Article from Bulletin/Magazine Dalam koleksi: Journal of Accountancy vol. 185 no. 6 (1998), halaman 39-46. Topik: PEER; common peer; problem Ketersediaan Perpustakaan Pusat (Semanggi) Nomor Panggil: JJ85.5 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada     Lihat Detail Induk Isi artikel Confirmation of accounts receivable has been a nearly sacrosanct auditing procedure for over 50 years. Before most of todays practicing CPA s were even born, the AICPA issued Statement on Auditing Procedure no. 1, Extensions of Auditing Procedure, requiring auditors to confirm accounts receivable whenever they were material to the financial statements. SAS no. 67, The Confirmation Process, followed in 1991 with significant changes in procedure. Despite those pronouncements and the publication in 1995 of the AICPA Auditing Procedure Study Confirmation of Accounts Receivable, problems continued to crop up. In fact, the Institutes peer review division (now the practice monitoring division) released a 1995 report in the Practicing CPA citing fundamental violations of the provisions of SAS no. 67. Even though the principle of confirmation is long - standing, perhaps these peer review deficiencies reflect auditors inadequate understanding of the requirements. Audit quality will be enhanced if practitioners have a sound understanding of the provisions of SAS no. 67. The flowchart on pages 4041 portrays the major aspects of the confirmation process. Additionally, this article emphasizes those commonly identified peer review confirmation. Opini Anda Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini! Kembali

Copyright © 2006, 2007 Unika Atma Jaya, all rights reserved